2018-05-03 Hearing Transcript - Hu Honua Bioenergy SMA 221

Home

illegal application of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 to his Kingdom by way of the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875, which was continued in 1898 by a joint resolution where Congress continued the Treaty so they can stay here and do, continue the business and occupy. Thank you. HARDEN: Good morning, Commissioners. I want to thank you for your volunteer service. Cory Harden from Sierra Club. I'm hoping—there are some questions I hope you will address in your discussion. I have them in my written testimony. Number one, Hu Honua says they're not going to repair or replace the collapsed portion of the Outfall, and they say, therefore, the Commission doesn't need to do anything. But, two things have changed. Water is now running unimpeded down the cliff base. I have a picture which I'll ask staff to pass around that I got from Claudia showing how the water used to go the Outfall and now it's running right down the cliff base. CLARKSON: We all have a copy of those photos. HARDEN: Oh, Claudia's been ahead of me. Okay. So, the water is running down the cliff base and injection wells are planned, so these are two changes. Are these things actually replacements for the Outfall, and that would mean the Commission would have to address the impacts. Second question, has anyone evaluated whether water from the injection wells will migrate to the shoreline or the ocean. Three, we all know if you change something upstream, things may change in 20 ways downstream, and will Hu Honua construction or operation change the speed, direction, or effects of water that's flowing over the property. Four, will the Outfall discharge storm water? That would require a State easement, maybe some other permits. Five, and who determines if the Outfall will discharge storm water? Do you just takes Hu Honua's determination on that or someone else? Six, who determines if the surface run-off going down what's left of the Outfall is behaving the same as before Hu Honua construction? Seven, what are the impacts on the cliff, beach, ocean, and ocean floor from suddenly having no flume? Eight, is the building still considered an existing structure? There's been a lot of alterations. Nine, are any of these things required? A State easement? A shoreline survey? A shoreline setback variance or an environmental assessment? And, ten, does the method of wastewater disposal require a permit or an environmental assessment? And, lastly, do the injection wells and the fourth cooling well require a major Special Management Area Permit? Or, did they require an updated environmental report to evaluate impacts to the aquifer? So, I hope you folks will discuss these questions. Thank you. CLARKSON: You may proceed, Ms. Rohr. ROHR: I'm Claudia Rohr. Adoption of the Finding of Fact which operation, which by operation informally approves construction and use of underground injection wells to dispose of over 21 million gallons a day of wastewater, treated wastewater, and construction of a new 8,000 million gallon a day cooling water well in the SMA area and Hakalau aquifer without an advertised public meeting on the matter clearly violates the Sunshine Law. Adoption, adopting Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law, which by operation informally approves continuation of illegal non -conforming use of the remnants of the Old Mill House for the power plant's storm EXHIBIT C 4